Do you have any theory? If you can propose to me a reasonable explanation for why the players are acting out of rational self-interest, you'll make my day.

It was clear to me as soon as the sides proposed offers in October that had less separating them than they stood to lose by even starting to permanently cancel games that any player who held out couldn't be doing so in order to make more money. And yet the only thing this negotiation is about is how to split up the money, so I take it for pure foolishness or spite.

Do you have any theory? If you can propose to me a reasonable explanation for why the players are acting out of rational self-interest, you'll make my day.

Trying to propose reasonableness in the face of strong feelings and/or bias is like trying to use a Hefty garbage bag as a parachute.

What you have asked for has been explained many times on these boards - if the reasoning didn't satisfy you then, it is unlikely to satisfy you now.

My theory is simple - Bettman and the owners are presenting a face that represents their collective belief in their collective self-interest. The PA is presenting its own face on the similarly complex dynamic between all the players. Regardless whether the PA or Bettman "wins", there will be winners and losers amongst the individual constituents on both sides.

That's a gross mischaracterization of what I just said, and I don't appreciate that at all.

Fine: I asked for an economic argument. An economic argument weighs numbers that have sources, perhaps suggests a model for how to consider them. I would like to see any economic argument for why the players are acting in self-interest.

You say it's been done many times. I've never seen it. What I've seen is plenty of this: "The players are voluntarily losing money now in order to hurt their employers so that their employers will be less likely to ask them to lose money again in the future." Which actually makes exactly the opposite kind of sense to me, because the more you hurt the game, the less your owners will be able to afford to give you. I've also seen a bunch of "it's about honor," which ignores all kinds of contract law. I've also seen, "why should players have to accept less if owners could just share more?" which ignores the math of how much owners are actually sharing compared to other leagues. I've never seen the economic argument. I've never seen somebody crunch numbers and try to tell me they add up to the players making a smart move.

My theory is simple - Bettman and the owners are presenting a face that represents their collective belief in their collective self-interest. The PA is presenting its own face on the similarly complex dynamic between all the players. Regardless whether the PA or Bettman "wins", there will be winners and losers amongst the individual constituents on both sides.

This is so nebulous that I don't know how to evaluate it. Are you saying that no matter what agreement is reached, some people on both sides will win and some people on both sides will lose? I'm pretty sure you can generalize that nobody on the player's side wins by the cap falling, for example. I'm pretty sure you can generalize that nobody on the player's side wins by not playing a season. If there's an argument that some minority of players are going to win in this negotiation even while their constituency as a whole loses, you have to show some theory of how, and then I'll of course wonder why the ship is being steered by the minority.

When the final deal is done, then we can discuss it. Until then, it's just idle speculation, and we'll all see in it exactly what we want to see in it.

For now, I'm happy pointing out that your exact sentiment was widely expressed in the last lockout, and it turned out the PA as a whole did magnificently better with the post-lockout deal than they would have with the pre-lockout offer on the table. It's not even close - the lockout paid for itself several times over in the subsequent years.

Time will tell how it plays out this time...but the first step is seeing the actual deal that they all actually agree to and start playing under.

When the final deal is done, then we can discuss it. Until then, it's just idle speculation, and we'll all see in it exactly what we want to see in it.

For now, I'm happy pointing out that your exact sentiment was widely expressed in the last lockout, and it turned out the PA as a whole did magnificently better with the post-lockout deal than they would have with the pre-lockout offer on the table. It's not even close - the lockout paid for itself several times over in the subsequent years.

Time will tell how it plays out this time...but the first step is seeing the actual deal that they all actually agree to and start playing under.

Well, by that logic, anybody commenting on either side's position in the negotiations is futile, including you. Might as well shut down the boards.

And there's not some mystical unknowability about how things will go or why they went the way they did last time: the players won last time because they negotiated 57% and because revenues grew dramatically. It's that simple. If that happens again, the players will win again (as will the everyone who gets a piece of the growing pie). But I can't conceive of the argument that a lockout is going to help grow revenues.

Simple: I'm sick of all of these players. Sick and tired of players who are so antagonistic that to this day they're fighting for the right to throw away their own money. It's an insult to their fans that $500M is worth so little to them that they'd rather lose that money just to **** on their employers than play the damned game they profess to love. I came into this lockout hoping for a quick resolution and relatively neutral between the sides. After watching the players mindlessly pursue a strategy that had them losing hundreds of millions of dollars even if they win the negotiation from here on out, hurting local economies, and insulting the fans by telling them how much they just want to play while turning their nose up at the best revenue split in North American pro sports, I have no interest in watching these guys again. They've acted like pigs. So Mr. Crosby can help himself to a plane, along with Mr. Miller, Mr. Ovechkin, Mr. Stamkos, the lot of them. They're an insult.

I'll watch the NHL again if they bring in scabs who love the game - or are at least not spiteful enough to throw their own money away just for a chance to rob the fans and owners of the game. That's exactly what the players have done - thrown their own money away just for a chance to spite their bosses and the fans.

There is an awful lot of your statement I agree with, and it seems our emotions get the best of us...the players are so out of touch with the real world, and have been since they were teenagers playing junior hockey...they should learn from the owners side, just be quiet and let one guy do your talking...

On the other side, the players have a very short career, and I can understand their frustrations also, but if you want to dictate how things are run, retire the skates and get your cheque book out, and buy a team, and then you can tell your employees how things should work...Crosby should ask Mario how it should be...

My theory is simple - Bettman and the owners are presenting a face that represents their collective belief in their collective self-interest. The PA is presenting its own face on the similarly complex dynamic between all the players. Regardless whether the PA or Bettman "wins", there will be winners and losers amongst the individual constituents on both sides.

in their quest for their collective self-interest, what both sides are forgetting, is the damage and complete disregard for the integrity of the game.

sure, the NHL will make money again, but so do WWE, The Amazing Race and Survivor. The NHL is closer to these then to the NFL, NBA and MLB.

the NHL is not and, in my mind, will not be a serious sport for a very long time.

None of the owners are losing 'massive' amounts of money, save maybe one or two (and the Leafs are corporate owned, incredibly well financed and could afford not to play for years without any risk to the franchise). You forget that for most teams, payroll is over 50% of their revenue, and they're not paying any of that at the moment. Neither are they paying for the massive amount of operational costs involved with running a hockey team. The only thing they are covering are their fixed costs (much of which if financed by debt, the interest upon which is tax deductible) and those losses will also carryforward to be applied against future earnings, so their real losses after tax are pretty damn small in the grand scheme of things. And they can make it all back if they want in salary in the future, because there is still a big gap between the floor and the cap that affords them flexibility.

Most of the players on the other hand are throwing away a material percentage of their lifetime earnings that they will never recover. For nothing. I think the players should have hired a financial advisor to work alongside Donald Fehr.

Keep in mind the losses of the owners are spread over 10 (ish) profitable teams. The losses of the players are spread across 750 players (ish) Although the players will lose money in the short term, I believe, they wont be losing in the long term. They kept their UFA and RFA rights, they owners have moved off their 'hill to die on' and if the players simply caved, this would have been a 5yr CBA (at the request of the owners) and another lockout.

If the players allow themselves to be trampled, they can/should expect to continually be walked on/locked out.

At least this time, come the next lockout, the owners will have to fight for the UFA/RFA rights, contract length and to get the PA down from 50%. If they bent over, come the next lockout, the PA would be looking at non-guaranteed contracts and even lower share of HRR.

Fehr's best card was the Revenue Sharing for two reasons.
1) it should help the overall stability in the league.
2) I'm not sure the big markets will continue to support the small ones. They have lost a good amount of profit due to the lockout. The money they will save in the gains (57% to 50%) will now be paid to small markets in revenue sharing.

Definitely not saying they players win or even close to win, but the loses seem to have been somewhat minimized IMO. According to what twitter/TSN etc.. are currently reporting. They lost in the short term, but didn't necessarily in the long term.

Simple: I'm sick of all of these players. Sick and tired of players who are so antagonistic that to this day they're fighting for the right to throw away their own money. It's an insult to their fans that $500M is worth so little to them that they'd rather lose that money just to **** on their employers than play the damned game they profess to love. I came into this lockout hoping for a quick resolution and relatively neutral between the sides. After watching the players mindlessly pursue a strategy that had them losing hundreds of millions of dollars even if they win the negotiation from here on out, hurting local economies, and insulting the fans by telling them how much they just want to play while turning their nose up at the best revenue split in North American pro sports, I have no interest in watching these guys again. They've acted like pigs. So Mr. Crosby can help himself to a plane, along with Mr. Miller, Mr. Ovechkin, Mr. Stamkos, the lot of them. They're an insult.

I'll watch the NHL again if they bring in scabs who love the game - or are at least not spiteful enough to throw their own money away just for a chance to rob the fans and owners of the game. That's exactly what the players have done - thrown their own money away just for a chance to spite their bosses and the fans.

Those evil millionaires oppressing the poor, charitable billionaires.

The Horatio Alger myth at work...none of us can be 6'8", run a 4.4 40 or skate like the breeze, but with a lot of hard work and a little luck we all could be their bosses!

The Horatio Alger myth at work...none of us can be 6'8", run a 4.4 40 or skate like the breeze, but with a lot of hard work and a little luck we all could be their bosses!

I think you missed the entire point. I'd support the players if they were trying to get the best deal they could - that's just the market at work. What positively disgusts me is that anyone with 20/20 vision and a calculator could have told you that the October offer was and continues to be the best one the players will ever see. When they decided to guarantee themselves a loss - to flush hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain - in order to fight over a comparative few cents, it showed me that they were more concerned with the battle of egos than with getting a good deal. They were more concerned with sticking it to their bosses than with playing the game, putting countless other people back to work, giving the fans their league back, and even maximizing their own welfare. What's more, they showed me that they take their wealth so positively for granted that it was worth it to them to flush a few hundred mil down the drain just to have a good pissing match. That's what disgusts me. That's why I won't be back.

I'm not in love with the owners particularly, but I look at what every other league is paying their people and all the reports that come out about the NHL's financials, and it seems they offered a pretty good deal. I look at what all the money that group makes or doesn't make in a year, and I can still rationalize that they're fighting for the best deal for themselves. I don't love them either, but I respect that.

Keep in mind the losses of the owners are spread over 10 (ish) profitable teams. The losses of the players are spread across 750 players (ish) Although the players will lose money in the short term, I believe, they wont be losing in the long term. They kept their UFA and RFA rights, they owners have moved off their 'hill to die on' and if the players simply caved, this would have been a 5yr CBA (at the request of the owners) and another lockout.

If the players allow themselves to be trampled, they can/should expect to continually be walked on/locked out.

At least this time, come the next lockout, the owners will have to fight for the UFA/RFA rights, contract length and to get the PA down from 50%. If they bent over, come the next lockout, the PA would be looking at non-guaranteed contracts and even lower share of HRR.

Fehr's best card was the Revenue Sharing for two reasons.
1) it should help the overall stability in the league.
2) I'm not sure the big markets will continue to support the small ones. They have lost a good amount of profit due to the lockout. The money they will save in the gains (57% to 50%) will now be paid to small markets in revenue sharing.

Definitely not saying they players win or even close to win, but the loses seem to have been somewhat minimized IMO. According to what twitter/TSN etc.. are currently reporting. They lost in the short term, but didn't necessarily in the long term.

First, the owners didn't want a 5 year CBA, they've argued for a 10 year CBA all along. It's the players that wanted a shorter CBA.

Second, the owners are not going to agree to revenue sharing beyond that which is already happening with regard to the shared contracts like TV.

And the issue I have with the players isn't about winning or losing, because the economic reality all along was that the players had to 'lose' if your define it relative to the last CBA. My problem is that I think they could have gotten just as good of a deal on a net basis if they started negotiating earlier and gave on some things quicker. I find it laughable that they threw away something like $800 million in salary arguing over $90 million of make whole money and $150 million in salary cap money, both of which they probably could have gotten 2 months ago if they didn't sit on their hands for months. On a net basis, the players didn't gain anything by doing what they did and we lost half a season of hockey, the winter classic, who knows how many fans, etc. Huge waste of time all because the players failed to face reality.

I find it laughable that they threw away something like $800 million in salary arguing over $90 million of make whole money and $150 million in salary cap money...

That's not what they did.

If they gained anything over the last no-games-lost offer, it has to be accounted for over the length of the next CBA. If the net loss for this season is only $550M ($800M - $90M - $150M) they only need an improvement of $60M a season over the 10 year term to have come out ahead.

I suspect they did rather better than that...we'll know when/if the deal is finalized.

If they gained anything over the last no-games-lost offer, it has to be accounted for over the length of the next CBA. If the net loss for this season is only $550M ($800M - $90M - $150M) they only need an improvement of $60M a season over the 10 year term to have come out ahead.

I suspect they did rather better than that...we'll know when/if the deal is finalized.

My understanding is that what you just described is not within the realm of possibility as long as we're talking about 50-50 and the "make whole + pensions" money comes in at less than $750M. And unless something drastically different than what's being reported is in this deal, I don't see that as plausible at all.

Plus you have to add in the effect of all the curmudgeons like me (and casual fans) who aren't going to come flocking back to the game as a result of this lockout, which has a deflating effect on future salaries.

Plus that $150M in salary cap money isn't a real gain - it just allows teams to budget up to $65M. If 50% of HRR ends up being $50M, then that's what they'll get after escrow. By my account, we're still talking $750M in lost salary offset by $300M in make whole + pension money. They might get a little more than 300, but it's going to fall far short of breaking even.

My understanding is that what you just described is not within the realm of possibility as long as we're talking about 50-50 and the "make whole + pensions" money comes in at less than $750M.

It's possible that is correct. It's also possible a slight improvement in the definition of HRR more than compensates for it. I do not know where the reality lies - I just know I am reserving judgement until the details - all the details - are revealed.

The PA was supposedly crushed after the last lockout - yet in reality it did exceedingly well and more than made up for the lost season of income. Time will tell if history repeats, or rhymes...

It's possible that is correct. It's also possible a slight improvement in the definition of HRR more than compensates for it. I do not know where the reality lies - I just know I am reserving judgement until the details - all the details - are revealed.

The PA was supposedly crushed after the last lockout - yet in reality it did exceedingly well and more than made up for the lost season of income. Time will tell if history repeats, or rhymes...

Well, it wasn't any secret sauce in the last CBA that caused the players to "win." It was 57% plus ballooning revenues.